Advanced GCE A2 H572

GCE

Religious Studies

Advanced GCE A2 H572 Advanced Subsidiary GCE AS H172

OCR Report to Centres June 2013

Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations

OCR (Oxford Cambridge and RS (A) is a leading UK awarding body, providing a wide range of qualifications to meet the needs of candidates of all ages and abilities. OCR qualifications include AS/A Levels, Diplomas, GCSEs, Cambridge Nationals, Cambridge Technicals, Functional Skills, Key Skills, Entry Level qualifications, NVQs and vocational qualifications in areas such as IT, business, languages, teaching/training, administration and secretarial skills.

It is also responsible for developing new specifications to meet national requirements and the needs of students and teachers. OCR is a not-for-profit organisation; any surplus made is invested back into the establishment to help towards the development of qualifications and support, which keep pace with the changing needs of today's society.

This report on the examination provides information on the performance of candidates which it is hoped will be useful to teachers in their preparation of candidates for future examinations. It is intended to be constructive and informative and to promote better understanding of the specification content, of the operation of the scheme of assessment and of the application of assessment criteria.

Reports should be read in conjunction with the published question papers and mark schemes for the examination.

OCR will not enter into any discussion or correspondence in connection with this report.

? OCR 2013

CONTENTS

Advanced GCE Religious Studies (H572) Advanced Subsidiary GCE Religious Studies (H172)

OCR REPORT TO CENTRES

Content G571 Philosophy of Religion G572 Religious Ethics G573 Jewish Scriptures G574 New Testament G575 Developments in Christian Theology G576 Buddhism G577 Hinduism G578 Islam G579 Judaism G581 Philosophy of Religion G582 Religious Ethics G583 Jewish Scriptures G584 New Testament G585 Developments in Christian Theology G586 Buddhism G587 Hinduism G588 Islam G589 Judaism

Page 1 5 8

10 12 15 17 19 21 23 26 29 31 33 36 38 40 42

OCR Report to Centres ? June 2013

G571 Philosophy of Religion

General Comments

This session there seems to have been more scripts achieving lower results than usual, which could have come about for a number of reasons. Firstly, it seems that candidates are not always aware which part of the specification is being questioned at times. While it is laudable for candidates to make use of a range of material in their answers, especially at AO2, it was important that they noted that Question 1 was from the Religion and Science section and question 3 was from the Judaeo-Christian background section of the specification.

There is also concern that the depth of candidate answers has not been as good as in previous years. Question 2a was a key example to note: this was often dealt with simplistically, and the skill of explaining was not always evident. This could be overcome by study of the specific texts that relate to the specification, for example Meditations 5 and Genesis 1-2. Whilst candidates do not need to quote from specified texts verbatim, a good understanding of them is required to access the higher bands in the Levels of Response. Another area where depth was often missing was question 3a, where candidates seemed unable to progress beyond a GCSE level of understanding in the Biblical concepts.

There were many very good scripts though there were significant misunderstandings of fundamental philosophical concepts among a significant number of candidates. There was also evidence that many candidates had insufficiently revised the whole specification, and had instead struggled to fit what they had revised to the question set.

For many candidates, part b) questions were difficult. Too many candidates simply listed arguments they had learned; but failed to engage with the question, either finishing with an unsupported personal belief or making no attempt to develop their own ideas. This is a skill that requires practice but is an essential academic skill. It is not enough to be able to state points of view when asked to discuss something. These questions are designed to encourage a reflective response.

A number of examiners have expressed concern about candidate's work which seems to follow a formulaic approach. Unfortunately for the candidates, this type of approach relies on examples based on previously set questions which do not necessarily contain the correct material for responses to be successful in this year's questions. There was a feeling that some content had been `shoe-horned in' in the hope that it might become relevant. It cannot be emphasised enough that evaluation is a skill which has to be honed and not copied. Candidates should avoid `model' answers at all costs.

It was refreshing that the overall standard of written communication showed improvement compared with recent years. Many candidates still struggle to distinguish the correct uses of of/have/a, sometimes using them interchangeably (as in `could of', `could a')

Comments on Individual Questions:

1a) Explain what is meant by Intelligent Design. [25]

Very few candidates recognised that this question was about Science and Religion. Even then, the candidates who were able to jump this hurdle seemed often to lack sufficient depth of understanding of the work of (for example) Behe. The majority of responses explained Aquinas and Paley in a range of detail. Better responses often still included a range of irrelevant material, using Aquinas, Paley, or other forms of the Teleological argument. There was often little mention of the fact that Intelligent Design claims to have found the black box about which Darwin wrote. There were some responses that thought that Intelligent Design proves the existence of the Judaeo-Christian God.

1

OCR Report to Centres ? June 2013

The best responses identified that Darwin had stated the conditions which would falsify his theory of slight successive modified changes passed on from generation to generation. They were able to identify the discussion of the flagellum on cilia or cilium and how this required so many combinations of specific bio-chemical elements which if either not present or organised otherwise would see the cell ceasing to fulfil its function. The analogy of the mousetrap, for example, was used to good effect at this stage to demonstrate the notion of irreducible complexity.

A significant number of candidates confused Paley's Design argument with the more modern search for Intelligent Design. A minority of candidates assumed that Intelligent Design was evolution, with Creationism as Unintelligent Design. Such responses received little credit.

1b) `The Intelligent Design argument makes no sense.' Discuss. [10]

Given the lack of context for so many candidates, answers to this question struggled to move out of level 2. Some candidates were also unable to engage with the phrase `no sense' and therefore their argument was often limited to being `implicit', and therefore level 3.

The better responses were able argue that Darwinism was supported with mountains of fossil evidence which could not simply be dismissed by apparent Intelligent Design found in examples like blood clotting and cilia. Candidates were able to demonstrate that these views were little more than pseudo-science which produced a non-empirical conclusion which was unfalsifiable.

2a) Explain Descartes' version of the Ontological argument. [25]

The conflation of Anselm and Descartes arguments was commonplace in this question. Some candidates seemed to be suggesting Descartes' argument was that because there are contingent objects in the universe, God must be necessary. Other candidates seemed to be suggesting that because a triangle has three sides God must exist as if the concept of a triangle and God are so inextricably linked one concept affects the other. Others assumed that Descartes was consciously developing the arguments of Anselm, despite the absence of any firm evidence that he was familiar with the text of Anselm's Proslogion.

Better candidates were able to clearly identify Descartes' argument and develop his reasoning to a good standard. However, these answers were often prefaced with the unnecessary preamble of Anselm and Gaunilo and focused on description, rather than explanation.

The best answers took ideas found in Meditations 3 and 5. Candidates were able to identify Descartes' idea that God has placed an imprint upon us, as a craftsman might leave a trademark on something he had made, then go onto suggest that some truths cannot be doubted once demonstrated. These responses then concluded that this was not meant to be an argument, but a demonstration of the existence of God. The very best responses successfully identified the mountain and valley example used by Descartes. The winged horses imagined were rarely mentioned.

Many candidates demonstrated a good understanding by explaining both existence as a perfection and as a predicate. Some struggled to explain what a predicate was, and very many were unaware of the distinctive nature of a defining predicate. Candidates would be wise to remember that `predicate' is a grammatical term applied to describe the subject of a sentence: it is not a description of a thing, but of a concept.

2

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download